And the jury took roughly 20 minutes to reject that defense and determine that they were guilty. Given that these "midwives" did "midwife things" such as vaginal exams and auscultation of FHTs with a Doppler, their "defense" was little more than a desperate attempt to escape the charges.

From the perspective of the State's Attorney, the case was fairly simply --
Florida requires a license to practice midwifery. The McGlades were practicing midwifery. They did not have a license. And a 20-minute jury verdict pretty much verifies the legal simplicity of the case.

And the jury took roughly 20 minutes to reject that defense and determine that they were guilty. Given that these "midwives" did "midwife things" such as vaginal exams and auscultation of FHTs with a Doppler, their "defense" was little more than a desperate attempt to escape the charges.

From the perspective of the State's Attorney, the case was fairly simply --
Florida requires a license to practice midwifery. The McGlades were practicing midwifery. They did not have a license. And a 20-minute jury verdict pretty much verifies the legal simplicity of the case.

Valerie
Illinois

Who has the right to decide what defines Midwifery? American Midwives?

I stand by my assertion that Midwives should never be required to be licensed.

Birth should never have been allowed to be medicalized nor legalized. :

They were not acting as midwives, but as people who were helping a mother who did not want to give birth at a hospital or with licensed midwives. Why should they be punished?

Who has the right to decide what defines Midwifery? American Midwives?

I stand by my assertion that Midwives should never be required to be licensed.

Birth should never have been allowed to be medicalized nor legalized. :

You may well believe that, and I respect your right to hold that belief, BUT...

Quote:

They were not acting as midwives, but as people who were helping a mother who did not want to give birth at a hospital or with licensed midwives. Why should they be punished?

Florida law defines "midwifery" as:

"(8) "Midwifery" means the practice of supervising the conduct of a normal labor and childbirth, with the informed consent of the parent; the practice of advising the parents as to the progress of the childbirth; and the practice of rendering prenatal and postpartal care."

Testimony in this case apparently showed (certainly at least to the jury's satisfaction) that these women acted as midwives -- they provided prenatal care, they did vaginal examinations, they listened to FHTs with a Doppler, they provided oxygen to the mother, and they examined the placenta. What's more, they had provided these services to a number of other women. By the definition provided *in Florida law* they were practicing midwifery, and they were doing it without a license.

You are absolutely entitled to your "assertion" that midwives should not be licensed. But the fact of the matter is that the State of Florida *requires* such licensure, and provides penalties for the violation of the law. One may defy that law and -- as in this case -- defy it very badly, but one does so at one's own risk. Like it or not, the law is clear.

The defendants said they never claimed to be midwives, a profession regulated by the state. They said they merely attended an unassisted home birth, which is legal.

Just a bit of a contradiction in terms there, it seems to me. If they "attended" (complete with doppler, scrubs, oxygen, etc.) an "unassisted" home birth, it wasn't exactly unassisted. And therein lies the problem. Regardless of what they called themselves (and there is some controversy about that), they functioned as midwives. In doing so without a license, they violated Florida law.

Just a bit of a contradiction in terms there, it seems to me. If they "attended" (complete with doppler, scrubs, oxygen, etc.) an "unassisted" home birth, it wasn't exactly unassisted. And therein lies the problem. Regardless of what they called themselves (and there is some controversy about that), they functioned as midwives. In doing so without a license, they violated Florida law.

Valerie
Illinois

Show me where those items are ONLY for Midwives to use. I see elderly ppl walking around town with their oxygen tanks.

Show me where those items are ONLY for Midwives to use. I see elderly ppl walking around town with their oxygen tanks.

And every last one of those elderly folks with oxygen has a physican's order for its use. SHOULD that be the case? Maybe not -- but it is the current law.

Once again, Florida law defines "midwifery" as "the practice of supervising the conduct of a normal labor and childbirth, with the informed consent of the parent; the practice of advising the parents as to the progress of the childbirth; and the practice of rendering prenatal and postpartal care."

The items I cited are part of the totality of the circumstances that resulted in the conviction of the McGlades for the practice of unlicensed midwifery. In looking at the entire picture, the jury determined (in less than 30 minutes!) that these women were indeed practicing as midwives, and that they were doing it without a license.

Should licenses even be required? Maybe not -- that is an entirely different argument. Under current Florida law they were found to be guilty of that particular statute.

Should licenses even be required? Maybe not -- that is an entirely different argument. Under current Florida law they were found to be guilty of that particular statute.

I don't think lincensure is an entirely different argument - it has far reaching consequences for UCers and what they can and cannot do. What this suggests to me is that perhaps UCers shouldn't just sit by and keep allowing these laws to be passed - like just happened in WI. What's next my sterile gloves size large for dh are now evidence that he is practicing midwifery without a license? What the licensure laws do is narrow our choices - a state directed homebirth or a *solo* birth.

I don't think lincensure is an entirely different argument - it has far reaching consequences for UCers and what they can and cannot do. What this suggests to me is that perhaps UCers shouldn't just sit by and keep allowing these laws to be passed - like just happened in WI. What's next my sterile gloves size large for dh are now evidence that he is practicing midwifery without a license? What the licensure laws do is narrow our choices - a state directed homebirth or a *solo* birth.

In regard to this particular thread -- that is to say, whether or not the McGlades should have been prosecuted -- it is indeed a different argument. Midwifery IS currently regulated under Florida law, and it is that law they were accused of violating.

A debate about licensure laws generally is certainly valid, and one which I have argued many, many times. But in this situation, the law is pretty clear -- in Florida, the practice of midwifery without a license is prohibited. Other posters in this thread have argued that the McGlades had done nothing for which they should be prosecuted. I have argued that they violated current, existing Florida law. It is very hard to argue that they did not.

Valerie, this thread is general about topics concerning the trial and the event. "Whether or not the McGlades should have been prosecuted"? That's one big topic; you have made nice argument why according to the *law* of Florida they should of - but there is a larger question present - whether the laws are valid, whether the law should be there to begin with.

*Should* they have been prosecuted? According to the law of Florida - perhaps. According to the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I feel this woman had a right to select anyone to be with her and help her in anyway she wanted them to. Licensure laws in my eyes are unconstitutional.

Valerie, this thread is general about topics concerning the trial and the event. "Whether or not the McGlades should have been prosecuted"? That's one big topic; you have made nice argument why according to the *law* of Florida they should of - but there is a larger question present - whether the laws are valid, whether the law should be there to begin with.

*Should* they have been prosecuted? According to the law of Florida - perhaps. According to the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I feel this woman had a right to select anyone to be with her and help her in anyway she wanted them to. Licensure laws in my eyes are unconstitutional.

Valerie, this thread is general about topics concerning the trial and the event. "Whether or not the McGlades should have been prosecuted"? That's one big topic; you have made nice argument why according to the *law* of Florida they should of - but there is a larger question present - whether the laws are valid, whether the law should be there to begin with.

I disagree -- "Whether or not the McGlades should have been prosecuted" is a very specific legal question. Did the McGlades practice midwifery? Is unlicensed midwifery illegal in Florida? Did the McGlades have midwifery licenses? The "larger question" to which you refer hardly makes for a good legal defense in the face of such clear regulation.

Quote:

*Should* they have been prosecuted? According to the law of Florida - perhaps. According to the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I feel this woman had a right to select anyone to be with her and help her in anyway she wanted them to. Licensure laws in my eyes are unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional in what way? The power to regulate health care professionals has been reserved to the states for a very very long time, and there is a tremendous body of case law supporting such regulation. While I certainly respect your right to oppose licensure, feelings alone do not change laws. In a previous post, you suggested that "perhaps UCers shouldn't just sit by and keep allowing these laws to be passed". Yet what you refer to as "these laws" are being passed at an increasing rate ... what is it you believe that UCers can do to prevent future laws from being passed, and change the laws currently in effect?